[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] Separate IRQ-stacks from 4K-stacks option
On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 16:00, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Bill Davidsen <> wrote:
> > Okay, I'll be the one to ask... what overload of the IPL acronym are
> > you using here? I asked google and several jargon files, and they all
> > say that IPL (initial program load) is IBMspeak for cold boot. Somehow
> > I don't think that's what you mean here.
> i understood it as Interrupt Privilege Levels. The notion of having some
> sort of scalar 'limit' - all interrupts with a higher priority than that
> will execute, all interrupts with lower priority will block. This is a
> fundamentally dodgy concept because in reality interrupt sources are
> independent entities so the natural description for of them is a bitmask
> (or an array, or whatever), not a level.

Yeah, I was talking about interrupt priority levels. I have to admit my
only exposure to them is a book on Solaris, they are intended as a
mechanism to deal with priority inversions. Sounds like a neat trick on
paper but they don't seem to be applicable here.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:0.050 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site